Positive drug provocation with beta-lactam antibiotics in children: A single test may not be enough
Main Article Content
Keywords
Beta-lactam antibiotics, children, diagnostic accuracy, drug provocation test, false positive reactions
Abstract
Background: Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are considered the gold standard for diagnosing beta-lactam allergy. However, positive results tend to be mild and difficult to interpret. This study aimed to describe pediatric patients with a presumedly positive or inconclusive DPT, assess the decision to repeat the DPT, and describe its outcome.
Methods: Retrospective review of all presumedly positive or inconclusive DPTs performed in six pediatric allergy clinics from 2017 to 2019. We describe the interpretation of results, focusing on the decision to repeat the DPT and its outcome.
Results: Of 439 children challenged with a beta-lactam, 26 (5.9%) with a presumedly positive or inconclusive result were included in this study. Most were girls (n = 16, 61.5%), and the median age was 5 years (range 1–13). The initial DPT used amoxicillin (n = 13, 50.0%), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n = 12, 46.2%), or cefadroxil (n = 1, 3.8%). Reactions were early (n = 11, 42.3 %), delayed (n = 14, 53.8 %), or not registered (n = 1, 3.8 %), but mild in all cases. A second confirmatory DPT was proposed in 19 patients (73.1%) and performed in 17 patients (65.4%). Nine DPTs were performed from 1 day to 4 months after the first DPT, and the remaining eight took place 6 months to 2 years later. Fifteen children tolerated the drug in the second DPT: 88.2% of those reevaluated and 57.5% of the whole study group.
Conclusion: The positive predictive value of DPT may be lower than expected. Given the mildness of observed reactions, a second confirmatory DPT is warranted within a few weeks or months.
References
2. Ibáñez MD, Rodríguez del Río P, Lasa EM, Joral A, Ruiz-Hornillos J, Muñoz C, et al. Prospective assessment of diagnostic tests for pediatric penicillin allergy: From clinical history to challenge tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(2): 235–44.e3. 10.1016/j.anai.2018.05.013
3. Guðnadóttir GK, Jónasson G, Clausen M, Sørensen TG, Kristjánsson S. Antibiotic oral provocation challenge in children. Acta Paediatr. 2021 Dec 8. doi: 10.1111/apa.16211. Online ahead of print.
4. Lucas M, Arnold A, Sommerfield A, Trevenen M, Braconnier L, Schilling A, et al. Antibiotic Allergy Labels in Children Are Associated with Adverse Clinical Outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(3):975–82. 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.09.003
5. Romano A, Atanaskovic-Markovic M, Barbaud A, Bircher AJ, Brockow K, Caubet JC, et al. Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams — an EAACI position paper. Allergy. 2020;75(6):1300–15. 10.1111/all.14122
6. Torres MJ, Celik GE, Whitaker P, Atanaskovic-Markovic M, Barbaud A, Bircher A, et al. A EAACI drug allergy interest group survey on how European allergy specialists deal with β-lactam allergy. Allergy. 2019;74(6):1052–62. 10.1111/all.13721
7. Misirlioglu ED, Toyran M, Capanoglu M, Kaya A, Civelek E, Kocabas CN. Negative predictive value of drug provocation tests in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014;25(7):685–90. 10.1111/pai.12286
8. Berroa F, Callero F, Fuentes-Aparicio V, Infante S, AlonsoLebrero E, Zapatero L. Rechallenge in pediatric patients diagnosed with delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2013;23(5):369–70. http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol23issue5/10-15.pdf
9. Tonson la Tour A, Michelet M, Eigenmann PA, Caubet JC. Natural History of Benign Nonimmediate Allergy to Beta-Lactams in Children: A Prospective Study in Retreated Patients After a Positive and a Negative Provocation Test. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(4):1321–6. 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.10.008
10. Lombardi C, Gargioni S, Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. The nocebo effect during oral challenge in subjects with adverse drug reactions. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;40(4):138–41. http://www.eurannallergyimm.com/cont/journals-articles/133/volume-nocebo-effect-during-oral-challenge-353allasp1.pdf
11. Bavbek S, Aydin, Sözener Z, Yüksel S. Determinants of nocebo effect during oral drug provocation tests. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2015;43(4):339–45. 10.1016/j.aller.2014.04.008
12. Liccardi G, Senna G, Russo M, Bonadonna P, Crivellaro M, Dama A, et al. Evaluation of the nocebo effect during oral challenge in patients with adverse drug reactions. J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol. 2004;14(2):104–7.
13. Bizzi F, Voltolini S, Fiaschi MD, Cavanna D. Assessing clinical and psychological features: Who are patients showing a nocebo reaction during the drug challenge test? Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;51(6):258–64. 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.116
14. Czerniak E, Oberlander TF, Weimer K, Kossowsky J, Enck P. “Placebo by Proxy” and “Nocebo by Proxy” in Children: A Review of Parents’ Role in Treatment Outcomes. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:1–10. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00169
15. Arik Yilmaz E, Tolga Yavuz S, Sekerel BE. Based on a patient: Dermographism should be routinely investigated before every provocation test. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2013;41(1): 65–6. 10.1016/j.aller.2011.11.005
16. Raley E, Khan DA. Drug-associated inducible laryngeal obstruction complicating penicillin allergy testing. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;125(5):599–600. 10.1016/j.anai.2020.06.031
17. Niggemann B. When is an oral food challenge positive? Allergy. 2010;65(1):2–6. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02170.x
18. Grabenhenrich LB, Reich A, Bellach J, Trendelenburg V, Sprikkelman AB, Roberts G, et al. A new framework for the documentation and interpretation of oral food challenges in population-based and clinical research. Allergy. 2017;72(3):453–61. 10.1111/all.13049
19. de Weger WW, Sprikkelman AB, Herpertz CEM, van der Meulen GN, Vonk JM, Kamps AWA, et al. The dilemma of open or double-blind food challenges in diagnosing food allergy in children: Design of the ALDORADO trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2022;33(1):e13654 10.1111/pai.13654
20. Mischlinger J, Schernhammer E. A common trap of diagnostic tests: Disease prevalence and positive predictive value. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2017;129(15–16):583–4. 10.1007/s00508-017-1204-0
21. Cardoso-Fernandes A, Blumenthal KG, Chiriac AM, Tarrio I, Afonso-João D, Delgado L, et al. Frequency of severe reactions following penicillin drug provocation tests: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021;11(4):1–14. 10.1002/clt2.12008
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.